9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the total income of the assessee at Rs.231 crores. For A.Y. 2009-10, a demand has been raised on the assessee in the amount of Rs.107.33 crores. 3. The Petitioner has filed an appeal before the C.I.T.(A) against the order of assessment. The Court has been informed that the appeal was heard by the C.I.T.(A) and the order has been reserved on 8 March 2013. The appeal is yet to be disposed of. On 21 December 2012, the Petitioner was initially informed that the C.I.T., Central Circle-IV had passed an order requiring the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25 crores representing 25% of the outstanding demand in ten equal monthly installments from December 2012 until September 2013 each installment being required to be paid by the 25th day of ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent for the month of December 2012 and to pay the installment for January 2013 on or before 25 January 2013. Accordingly, since the Petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the order, the stay was vacated. This aspect of the case is unexceptionable, since once the Petitioner had accepted the installments payable, it was duty bound to effect payment in accordance with the schedule which was intimated." The Petition was disposed of with the direction that the Petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.2.5 crores for the month of February 2013 and an amount of Rs.2.5 crores for March 2013 by 25 March 2013 failing which, it would be open to the authorities to recover the outstanding demand in accordance with law. The C.I.T., Central -IV was dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered in terms of the judgments of this Court noted above. It has been urged that on 25 March 2013, when the Petitioner submitted a representation, the C.I.T., Central-IV passed an order on the same day and immediately proceeded to attach the Bank Account thereby disabling the Petitioner from taking steps to pursue its remedy in accordance with law. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the Revenue that though the Petitioner has agreed to the schedule of installments at the rate of Rs.2.5 crores per month, evidently there has been a default on the part of the Petitioner and hence, the directions in the impugned order cannot be faulted. 7. The facts of the case have been considered in the earlier judgment of this Court dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ores on or before 10 May 2013 for the month of May 2013; -(ii) The Petitioner shall deposit an installment of Rs.2.5 crores for the month of June 2013 on or before 7 June 2013; -(iii) Conditional on the aforesaid payment being made, we direct that the recovery of the balance demand shall remain stayed. The C.I.T.(A) shall dispose of the appeal by 15 June 2013. -(iv) In the event that an order adverse to the Petitioner is passed by the C.I.T.(A), the recovery of the balance of the demand shall remain stayed for a period of two weeks thereafter, in order to enable the Petitioner to seek recourse to the remedy in appeal. -(v) In view of the aforesaid directions, Counsel appearing on behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
